One Response to “More on Ibuki “butter” Bunmei from Matt Dioguardi”

and thinking about Ibuki’s statement that America is an
“artificial” (_jinkouteki_) nation. This is interesting to think
about because of the values and thought processes that it implies.
I’d like to point out, though, that it is not new. I believe I ran
across it in the old Japanese version of the Fukuzawa list. So, it’s
my impression that it is a common notion in conservative circles in
Japan and not unique to Ibuki.

First, the objective reality that the statement refers to is the
extent to which the US is (and Japan is not) a “nation of
immigrants.” But, of course, calling the the U.S. an “artificial”
nation is not an objective statement. It is a normative one that
implies that there is something “unnatural” and hence undesirable
about the way the U.S. is put together.

“Artificial” in Japanese is made up of two characters: one meaning
“human being” and the other meaning “constructed.” Thus,
“artificial” is literally “man-made.” Now, if Japanese society is
not “man-made” then perhaps we should think about who made it. Does
the assertion that Japan is not a “man-made” nation imply that it is
“god-made”?

Historical research points to the “man-made” nature of nation states
all over the world. The notion that Japan is not “man-made” may be
evidence that reverence for the mythical origins of this country is
still alive, at least at a sub- or semi-conscious level.

Another issue to ponder is the sense in which homogeneity is
“natural” and diversity is “artificial” or “unnatural.” Does
“natural” (the state why may assume to be the antithesis of
“jinkoteki” or “artificial”) mean leaving human beings to behave as
they see fit? If so, it would seem fairly easy to point to
situations in which human beings “naturally” elected to form diverse
societies or cross ethnic boundaries. Conversely, “man-made” means
are often required to prevent ethnic groups from co-mingling. In the
Edo period “sakoku” was an “artificial” means employed to control the
natural impulse of human beings to travel. In modern times, how can
one argue implementing laws preventing immigration and thus
preserving relative homogeneity is more “natural” than allowing human
beings to move freely?

Perhaps it is thought that laws are needed to prevent “unnatural”
acts. The U.S. has a history of anti-miscegenation laws. It was
thought that it was “unnatural” for persons of different “races” to
marry. Is the U.S. an “artifical” nation in the sense that it has
not followed the “natural” path of segregation by race?

The more one thinks about it, the more problematic the notion that
diversity is “artificial” and homogeneity is “natural” becomes. I
doubt, however, that many conservative Japanese have even considered
the implications of this “artificial” vs. “natural” creed; to most of
them, I think that the validity of the “US is artificial” statement
is too obvious to even warrant consideration.

Finally, I think there are important connections between the “US =
artificial” thought process and other statements Ibuki and has made
but I’ll save comments on those connections for later.